REPUBLICAN BUDGET HARMS SENIORS (AMONG MANY OTHERS)

The recently enacted Republican budget bill will harm seniors by reducing Medicaid spending, weakening Social Security, and cutting Medicare. These (and other) budget cuts are being made to help pay for large tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

The Republican budget just passed by Congress and signed by President Trump will harm seniors by reducing Medicaid spending, cutting Medicare, and weakening Social Security. Before I get into some of these details, a couple of notes on other provisions of the bill, of which there are many in the nearly 1,000-page bill’s language. As you probably know, 12 million people are projected to lose their health care due to Medicaid cuts of roughly $1 trillion (yes, trillion) over the next ten years. Medicaid provides health insurance for low-income families and seniors including long-term care for millions of seniors (see more below). Cuts to food assistance programs, primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), will increase hunger for millions of families, including many new mothers and babies where malnutrition may have long-term effects on the babies’ development.

All the cuts in the budget are being made to help pay for large tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations. Note that the big tax cuts take effect right away, while many of the program cuts don’t go into effect until after the 2026 election. The Republicans hope that because people won’t be experiencing the program cuts before the election that it will be easier to con voters into voting for Republicans.

Most people know that the budget will increase the federal budget’s annual deficits by over $300 billion for a total of $3 trillion (yes, trillion) over the next ten years. However, few people are aware that the bill increases the federal government’s overall amount of allowable, accumulated debt, i.e., the debt ceiling, by $5 trillion. (I’ll document the Republicans’ hypocrisy on raising the debt ceiling in a future post.)

The Trump administration and Republicans are pumping out lots of disinformation about the budget bill in an attempt to keep the public from understanding the harm it will do.

For example, within hours of the passage of the bill, all of you who are seniors, tens of millions of Americans overall, received an email from the Social Security Administration stating that “The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits” and that “The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries.” [1]

These statements are misleading at best. Only about a quarter (25%) of seniors will see any tax benefit from the bill’s provisions – quite different from the figures used in the Social Security Administration’s email.The bill does not directly eliminate or even reduce taxes on Social Security benefits. What the bill does is temporarily increase the standard income tax deduction by $6,000 for seniors 65 and over. [2] Sixty-four percent of seniors receiving Social Security benefits ALREADY pay no tax on their Social Security payments. This percentage will increase to 88% due to the bill’s provisions. Furthermore, the people who will benefit will be those Social Security recipients who are better off and the richest will benefit the most. By the way, the increase in the income tax deduction will expire in 2028 when Trump’s term in office is ending. [3] [4]

Furthermore, the message from the Social Security Administration didn’t mention that, overall, the budget bill will weaken Social Security by reducing the revenue that flows into the Social Security system. Currently, the Social Security trust fund, built up over many years to help pay Social Security benefits, is projected to run out of money in 2033. After that, Social Security revenue would only be able to pay 77% of promised benefits. Under the Republican budget bill, the Social Security trust fund will run out of money one year earlier, in 2032, and its reduction of future Social Security revenue means that benefits after 2032 would be even lower than the currently projected 77% of the promised level. [5]

The Republican budget’s cuts to Medicaid will harm low-income seniors who qualify for Medicaid (and that they receive in addition to Medicare – which covers all seniors). In particular, it will harm the roughly eight million seniors and people with disabilities whose long-term home and community-based care services are paid for by Medicaid and the 1.5 million seniors in nursing homes. About two-thirds of all nursing home residents are covered by Medicaid. The budget’s Medicaid cuts will significantly reduce revenue for long-term care services and facilities. As a result, 25% of nursing homes are projected to close and over half are likely to have to reduce staff to remain financially viable. Therefore, finding nursing home care, let alone good quality care, will become even more difficult than it is now. [6] [7]

In addition to the direct cuts to Medicaid (government health care coverage for low-income families and seniors), the Republican budget will also force cuts to Medicare (government health care coverage for all seniors). Because of the budget’s large increases in the federal government’s annual budget deficits, the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act of 2010 requires across-the-board budget cuts. A mandatory cut of about $50 billion a year to Medicare for each of the next ten years will be required. This cut will take place immediately (while many of the explicit program cuts in the budget are delayed until after the 2026 elections). [8]

Please contact your members of Congress and tell them you are opposed to (or even horrified by) budget cuts that will harm seniors. Tell them you are particularly upset that these cuts are being used to give wealthy individuals and corporations tax cuts. Urge them to speak out against these cuts and to explain to their constituents the toll the Republican budget is taking on seniors and others.

You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

[1] Social Security Administration, 7/3/25, “Social Security applauds passage of legislation providing historic tax relief for seniors,” Press Release (https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#2025-07-03)

[2] Hubbell, R., 7/7/25, “Stay on task: Overwhelm the opposition,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/stay-on-task-overwhelm-the-opposition)

[3] Edelman, L., 7/15/25, “Seniors score, gamblers get rolled in Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’,” The Boston Globe

[4] Siegel Bernard, T., 7/8/25, “Social Security email misleading,” The Boston Globe from the New York Times

[5] Johnson, J., 7/4/25, “Trump Social Security chief applauds budget bill that will harm Social Security’s finances,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-social-security-budget-bill)

[6] Lawson, A., 6/30/25, “The Republican nursing home apocalypse,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/gop-nursing-homes)

[7] National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, Feb. 2025, “Medicaid facts with links to state data,” (https://nacdd.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/250204_NACDD-Medicaid-Fact-Sheet.pdf)

[8] Dayen, D., 7/3/25, “Republicans are cutting Medicare. Not only Medicaid, Medicare.” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/politics/2025-07-03-republicans-cutting-medicare-not-only-medicaid/)

WHAT DEMOCRATS NEED TO DO Part 2

Democrats need to be more dramatic, effective, and consistent in opposing Trump, his nominees, and the congressional Republicans’ agenda. They need to step up their resistance while promoting and committing to enact policies that would support everyday Americans.

(Note: If you find this post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Correction. In my previous post asking you to contact your U.S. Representative and ask them to oppose elements of the proposed Republican budget, I wrote that the proposed cuts to Medicaid were “$700 – $800 million.” As many of you know, that should have been $700 – $800 BILLION.)

This previous post made the case that Democrats need to be more dramatic, effective, and consistent in opposing Trump, his nominees, and the congressional Republicans’ agenda. It identified policies that Democrats should be promoting for our economy and the economic well-being of all Americans. This current post focuses on policies in the social services arena, including health care reforms, drug price reductions, enhancements to Medicare, and ensuring long-term funding for Social Security.

Here are some specific policies Democrats ought to be promoting and committing to enact in the social services arena when they are back in power:

Ending wasteful and dangerous privatization of health care. Here are two examples;
- Private equity firms should be banned from the health care industry. The example of Steward Health alone should be enough to seal this case, but there are plenty of other examples as well. (See this previous post for more information.)
- End the Medicare Advantage program, which privatizes Medicare and results in huge, often fraudulent, wasteful costs to the Medicare program. For example, in 2024, illegal overbilling by Medicare Advantage providers (i.e., big insurance corporations) was estimated to be $83 billion. Medicare Advantage is estimated to cost Medicare $140 billion more per year than if all individuals were on traditional Medicare. [1] (See this previous post for more details.)
Strong regulation of drug prices. President Biden took some initial steps to regulate and reduce drug prices, but President Trump is undoing them. In 2022, U.S. drug prices were two and three-quarters times (178% more than) prices in 33 other industrialized countries. This means that our federal, state, and local governments (i.e., taxpayers) and all of us pay over $200 billion a year extra, which fuels exceptionally high profits for drug makers (when compared to other sectors of our economy). [2] (See this previous post for more details.)
Enhance Medicare. If the Medicare Advantage program was eliminated and Medicare was allowed to negotiate prices for all drugs (see the above two bullet points), the savings would be sufficient to pay for the addition of dental, hearing, and vision benefits to Medicare, as well as to cap out-of-pocket spending by Medicare enrollees.
Ensure Social Security funding for the rest of this century. Currently, workers pay taxes into Social Security only on the first $176,100 they earn in a year. This means that someone making a million dollars stops paying into Social Security after February 15 and someone making ten million dollars stops paying into Social Security after the first week of January. Simply eliminating this cap would increase Social Security’s revenue by roughly $100 billion per year. This would provide about 75% of the funding needed to allow Social Security to pay out its full planned benefits for the rest of the century. The rest could be raised by taxing investment income, estates, and gifts or a variety of other strategies. [3]
- NOTE: The Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act in Congress would require taxpayers with over $400,000 in income in a year to pay a bit more into Medicare and Social Security. This would fully fund planned Medicare and Social Security benefits for at least the next 75 years. [4]

There are plenty of other policies that Democrats should be advancing to demonstrate that they would better serve and support workers and everyday Americans than Trump and the Republicans. Examples include housing; early education and child care; supporting workers and their unions; effective regulation of businesses for worker, consumer, and public safety; and strong enforcement of antitrust laws including the breaking up of monopolistic companies.

If any of your members of Congress are Democrats, I urge you to contact them and ask them to step up their resistance while promoting and committing to enact policies that would support everyday Americans. You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

[1] Dayen, D., 1/27/25, “We found the $2 trillion,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/economy/2025-01-27-we-found-the-2-trillion-elon-musk-doge/)

[2] Dayen, D., 1/27/25, see above.

[3] Dayen, D., 1/27/25, see above.

[4] Conley, J., 5/9/25, “Democrats’ bill would extend Social Security and Medicare solvency ‘as far as the eye can see’,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/social-security-medicare-2671925476)

RESISTANCE ACTIONS ON UKRAINE AND TRUMP

ACTION #1: I strongly urge you to contact your US Representative and Senators NOW and ask them to support Ukraine. Here’s a sample message. Feel free to tailor it and put it in your own voice.

Please speak out loudly and clearly, and do everything in your power, to support Ukraine and democracy, while strongly opposing Putin, Russia, and dictators. I’m appalled by Trump’s, Vance’s, and Republicans’ attacks on Ukraine and Zelensky! Their withdrawal of satellite imagery and intelligence support for Ukraine is putting civilian and front lines troops’ lives at greater risk. This is horrifying!

Also, please do everything you can to prevent the Trump administration from lifting economic sanctions on Russia. Lifting them would be very harmful to Ukraine and to the struggle between democracies and autocracies worldwide.

Note that many offices only accept messages on a voice mail system. In most cases, you can call outside of regular business hours and leave a message.

ACTION #2: This is actually three sample messages for President Trump. Feel free to tailor them and put them in your own voice. You can do any one of them, all of them at once, or do them in three separate calls or emails.

President Trump please:

Tell Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy to work aggressively to stop the measles outbreak and the spread of bird flu. If more people die and egg prices keep going up, you will get hell from me and the American people!
Tell Musk to stop the firings at the Social Security Administration and the Veterans Administration. If those services deteriorate, I and the many other members of the public who rely on those services will be very unhappy, to say the least!
Stop your tariffs, the Republican budget, and Musk’s disruptive actions because if they crash the stock market and the economy, as they appear to be doing, you can be sure that Americans from all walks of life will be quite angry!

You can email President Trump at https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ or you can call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111, which is available only on Tuesday through Thursday between 11 am and 3 pm Eastern time.

FUNDING SOCIAL SECURITY

ABSTRACT: Advocates for cutting Social Security benefits claim that cuts are needed because of a future funding shortfall. However, Social Security’s projected shortfall is small and 20 years in the future. Moreover, there are adjustments to the funding for Social Security that will easily eliminate the future funding shortfall.

The two most frequently mentioned ways of cutting Social Security’s costs are reducing future benefit payments and increasing the retirement age. The leading proposal would cut benefits by reducing the annual cost of living increases that seniors receive. However, to most accurately reflect the change in the cost of living that seniors actually experience, the annual increase in benefits should be greater than it is currently, not less. Cutting benefits will hurt retirees who rely on their modest Social Security benefits to make ends meet.

Another way to reduce Social Security’s cost is by increasing the age for receiving Social Security. The age for collecting full Social Security benefits is being increased from 65 to 67. People are living longer on average, but those with low incomes and less education have seen very little change in their life expectancy. Therefore, it hardly seems fair to increase the Social Security retirement age further.

The simplest and probably fairest way to address the Social Security shortfall would be to eliminate or increase the cap on the earnings that are subject to the Social Security tax. If the cap were eliminated, Social Security’s shortfall would be solved for at least 75 years.

FULL POST: Advocates for cutting Social Security benefits claim that cuts are needed because of a future funding shortfall. However, Social Security’s projected shortfall is small and 20 years in the future. It has no impact on the federal deficit because Social Security has its own, dedicated funding stream. So cutting benefits will do nothing to reduce the deficit but would hurt retirees who rely on their modest Social Security benefits to make ends meet. (See my post The Retirement Crisis and Social Security of 11/26/13 for more information. https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2013/11/26/the-retirement-crisis-and-social-security/) Moreover, there are adjustments to the funding for Social Security that will easily eliminate the future funding shortfall.

The two most frequently mentioned ways of cutting Social Security’s costs are reducing future benefit payments and increasing the retirement age. The Republican budget and President Obama and some Democrats have proposed that benefits be cut by reducing the annual cost of living increases that seniors receive. This would be accomplished by using a different and lower measure of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to calculate the annual adjustment in benefits – the “Chained CPI” instead of the regular CPI. (See my post Social Security and Chained CPI of 4/13/13 for more information. https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2013/04/13/social-security-and-chained-cpi/)

However, the most accurate measure of the change in the cost of living for seniors is the CPI-E (for Elderly), and it is typically higher than either of the regular CPI (which is currently used) or the proposed “Chained CPI”. This means that to most accurately reflect the change in the cost of living that seniors actually experience, the annual increase in benefits should be greater than it is currently, not less. The bills in Congress to strengthen Social Security generally include the use of CPI-E for the annual cost of living adjustment. [1]

Another way to reduce Social Security’s cost is by increasing the age for receiving Social Security. The age for collecting full Social Security benefits is being increased from 65 to 67. (One can get Social Security benefits at younger ages but the amount received is reduced.) The major argument for this is that people are living longer on average. They are, but it is the well educated and affluent who are living longer. Those with low incomes and less education have seen very little change in their life expectancy and those with the least education have seen their life expectancy decline. [2] Therefore, it hardly seems fair to increase the Social Security retirement age further.

The simplest and probably fairest way to address the Social Security shortfall that’s 20 years in the future would be to eliminate or increase the cap on the earnings that are subject to the Social Security tax. (This Social Security tax is the dedicated and sole funding source for Social Security.)

Currently, Social Security tax is only paid on the first $113,700 of earnings. Amounts above that are untaxed. For workers earning up to that amount, they pay a 6.2% tax that is deducted from their paychecks and their employers match that amount. But because of the cap, someone making $1 million only pays tax on $113,700 of earnings, meaning that overall they pay less than 1% (instead of 6.2%) of their earnings into Social Security. If the cap were eliminated, Social Security’s shortfall would be solved for at least 75 years.

The bills in Congress to strengthen Social Security generally solve the funding shortfall by increasing the funding from the Social Security tax. Some raise or eliminate the cap on earnings subject to the tax. Others apply the tax to earnings over $250,000 but not to earnings between the current cap and $250,000 to avoid increasing taxes on people in that upper middle class earning range. It seems fairer and simpler to me to eliminate the cap and cut the tax rate slightly. This would give a small tax cut to everyone earning less than the $113,700 cap.

There are other ways to increase Social Security funding. One that has been suggested is to increase income taxes on high income individuals getting Social Security benefits and putting this revenue back into Social Security. Another is to use some of the revenue from the estate tax to fund Social Security. There are other options, but raising or eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the Social Security tax is the simplest and most straight forward solution to Social Security’s long-term funding shortfall. (See my post Social Security: Facts and Fixes of 12/4/11 for more information. https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2011/12/04/social-security-facts-and-fixes/)

[1] McAuliff, M., 11/18/13, “Elizabeth Warren: Expand Social Security,” The Huffington Post

[2] Krugman, P., 11/21/13, “Expanding Social Security,” The New York Times

THE RETIREMENT CRISIS AND SOCIAL SECURITY

ABSTRACT: There is a retirement crisis in America. Both current and soon-to-be retirees are more dependent on Social Security than ever, yet some politicians and corporate executives are arguing that Social Security should be cut. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts recently gave a speech in the Senate where (in only five and a half minutes) she did an excellent job of summarizing the retirement crisis and making the case for strengthening Social Security (http://ourfuture.org/20131118/elizabeth-warren-on-social-security-its-values-not-math).

Retirees’ reliance on Social Security is only going to increase because the other two legs of the three-legged retirement security stool, pension plans and personal savings, have been weakened. With Social Security as the only strong leg of retirement security, this is not the time to be reducing its benefits.

Given that 70% of Americans indicate in polls that they oppose Social Security cuts and 65% support increasing benefits, who is pushing for these cuts? Many Republicans are ideologically opposed to social welfare programs and cuts to Social Security are in the Republican budget. President Obama and some Democrats have signed on to the idea of the cuts as a compromise in pursuit of a “Grand Bargain” to resolve the federal budget’s deficit.

Prominently promoting the cuts in Social Security benefits have been two groups of corporate executives: the Business Roundtable and Fix the Debt. There’s great irony here from two perspectives. First, the corporate executives on the Business Roundtable have retirement accounts worth $14.5 million on average. Second, if the current Social Security tax cap were eliminated, corporate executives with $10 million in income, for example, would pay $1.24 million into Social Security instead of $14,000 and Social Security’s future funding problem would disappear.

Bills have been introduced in Congress to strengthen Social Security and its benefits. I encourage you to contact your Senators and Representative to ask them where they stand on Social Security cuts and these bills.

FULL POST: There is a retirement crisis in America. Both current and soon-to-be retirees are more dependent on Social Security than ever, yet some politicians and corporate executives are arguing that Social Security should be cut. This makes no sense from a budget perspective or a retirement policy perspective. There are bills currently in Congress to strengthen Social Security, by improving both its finances and its benefits, without any impact on the federal budget or the deficit. [1]

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts recently gave a speech in the Senate where (in only five and a half minutes) she did an excellent job of summarizing the retirement crisis and making the case for strengthening Social Security. I encourage you to listen to her speech at http://ourfuture.org/20131118/elizabeth-warren-on-social-security-its-values-not-math.

Although the average recipient gets less than $15,000 a year from Social Security, many seniors are highly dependent on it. For 36% of seniors, Social Security is 90% of their income and for two-thirds of seniors, Social Security is more than half of their income. The current poverty measure indicates that 9% of seniors live in poverty, but an updated measure that most experts consider more accurate puts that figure at almost 15%. [2] Cutting Social Security benefits would clearly increase poverty among seniors.

Retirees’ reliance on Social Security is only going to increase because the other two legs of the three-legged retirement security stool, pension plans and personal savings, have been weakened. Only 18% of private sector workers have pensions (which pay a guaranteed monthly benefit for life as Social Security does). In 1975, 50% of workers had pensions. A combination of factors including expanded foreign trade and competition, along with weakened unions (which had made pensions a standard part of workers’ benefits) contributed to this dramatic decline in pensions.

Personal retirement savings are relatively small and have been hurt by the economic collapse, which cut the value of homes (where the middle class had most of its savings) and the value of investments. Some employers have replaced pension plans with personal savings accounts such as 401ks. However, only half of workers have such accounts and 80% of those accounts have less than $67,000 in them. [3]

With Social Security as the only strong leg of the three-legged stool of retirement security, this is not the time to be reducing its benefits. Given the current state of affairs, 53% of workers are at risk for having a lower standard of living in retirement than they had while working. And this percentage is up from 38% in 2001.

Given that 70% of Americans indicate in polls that they oppose Social Security cuts and 65% support increasing benefits, [4] why is there a push to cut Social Security benefits? The only reason that seems to make any sense is that those pushing a cut are ideologically opposed to Social Security – and often to social welfare programs in general.

So specifically who is pushing for these cuts? As mentioned above, it is in the Republican budget and reflects many Republicans’ ideological opposition to social welfare programs. President Obama and some Democrats have signed on to the idea of the cuts as a compromise in pursuit of a “Grand Bargain” to resolve the federal budget’s deficit.

Prominently promoting the cuts in Social Security benefits have been two groups of corporate executives: the Business Roundtable and Fix the Debt (a project of The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget). These groups have been spending tens of millions of dollars on campaigns to build support for cutting Social Security (and Medicare, our health insurance program for seniors). There’s great irony here from two perspectives. First, the corporate executives on the Business Roundtable have retirement accounts worth $14.5 million on average. That would generate a monthly retirement check of over $86,000 compared to the typically monthly Social Security check of $1,237. [5] Second, the current Social Security tax (Social Security’s dedicated and only funding source) is only paid on the first $113,700 of earnings. Amounts above that are untaxed. If this Social Security tax cap were eliminated, corporate executives with $10 million in income, for example, would pay $1.24 million into Social Security instead of $14,000 and Social Security’s future funding problem would disappear.

Bills have been introduced in Congress to strengthen Social Security and its benefits. The Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Sanders (S.1558) and in the House by Representative DeFazio. The Strengthening Social Security Act has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Harkin (S.567) and in the House by Representative Sanchez (H.R.3118). I encourage you to contact your Senators and Representative to ask them where they stand on Social Security cuts and these bills. [6]

[1] Sargent, G., 11/5/13, “Liberal push to expand Social Security gains steam,” The Washington Post

[2] Krugman, P., 11/21/13, “Expanding Social Security,” The New York Times

[3] Democracy for America, 11/24/13, “Expand Social Security,” http://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/social_security_infographic/?source=ptnr.ssw_ssinfo.20131105 (You can get more information and sign their petition to support expanding Social Security here.)

[4] Alman, A., 11/19/13, “Voters in key states really don’t want Social Security cut,” The Huffington Post

[5] Anderson, S., 11/21/13, “CEOs against grandmas,” Daily Times Chronicle

[6] You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.